Case Digest (G.R. No. 39671)
Facts:
- The City of Manila is the plaintiff and appellant.
- Salvador Roxas y Elio and others are the defendants, with Maria Elio Viuda de Roxas and Cu Unjieng e Hijos as appellees.
- The case arose from expropriation proceedings initiated by the City of Manila to acquire lands owned by the defendants.
- The expropriation occurred without immediate compensation, leading to disputes over taxes owed by property owners during dispossession.
- The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of the property owners, awarding them reimbursement for taxes paid under protest.
- The City of Manila appealed, raising procedural and factual questions not preserved for review.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
- The court ruled that property owners are entitled to reimbursement for taxes and assessments paid during dispossession.
- It held that the state must...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The decision was based on the principle of just compensation mandated by law.
- The court emphasized that property owners should not bear the financial ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 39671)
Facts:
The case involves the City of Manila as the plaintiff and appellant against Salvador Roxas y Elio and others as defendants, with Maria Elio Viuda de Roxas and Cu Unjieng e Hijos as appellees. The events leading to this case began when the City of Manila initiated expropriation proceedings to acquire lands owned by the defendants. The expropriation was carried out without immediate compensation, leading to a dispute regarding the taxes that the property owners were required to pay during the period between their dispossession and the formal transfer of title to the city. The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled in favor of the property owners, awarding them an allowance for the taxes they had paid under protest during this interim period. The City of Manila appealed this decision, raising several procedural and factual questions, although these were not properly preserved for review in the trial court. The appellate court noted that it would disregard these procedural questions and assume that the trial court had acted on a complete understanding of the facts.
Issue:
- Is the City of Manila liable to reimburse the p...